Using a sample of Chinese college students (n = 216), the present
study showed that future-oriented coping negatively correlated with
perceived pressure and positively correlated with successful job
hunting. The relationship between proactive coping and preventive coping
was also explored. Structural equation modeling suggested that a
sequence model was better than a parallel model; that is, proactive,
coping mediated the effect of preventive coping on perceived pressure
and successful job hunting. They are sequential stages of one process
rather than two separate processes. Students' appraisal of job
hunting and their preparing and hunting behaviors were also
investigated.

In a person's career, the transition from school to work is a
critical stage (Super & Hall, 1978). Individuals in this stage may
encounter many difficulties, for example, seeking a job. Ten years ago,
this was not a problem for Chinese university graduates, because only a
few high school students had the opportunity to receive a college
education, and they were assigned a job after graduation. This situation
changed in 1999 when the government implemented a policy to expand
enrollment in Chinese institutions of higher learning. Since 2003, the
sharp increase in the number of college graduates has placed a strain on
the employment market, and the issue of unemployment has gradually
become problematic (Feng, 2003). As a result, seeking a job has become a
major stressor for college students, and most students begin to prepare
for their careers at the very beginning of college-Compared with
"occasional stressors" such as accidents, job layoffs, and so
on (Schwarzer & Taubert, 2002), seeking a job after graduation is
inevitable and foreseeable for most graduates. Therefore, the related
coping process involves more initiative and proactive components. In
this case, the concept of "future-oriented coping" is
introduced to the research area of job hunting.

Coping is defined as thoughts and behaviors that people use to
manage the internal and external demands of situations that are
appraised as stressful (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Although
anticipating harm or loss is central to this widely accepted definition
(Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004), traditional coping models tend to
overemphasize the reactive nature of coping (Schwarzer & Taubert,
2002) and focus attention on how people cope with past or ongoing
stressors. In contrast, future-oriented coping focuses on stressors that
one may encounter in the future. Currently, there are several terms used
to refer to future-oriented coping, such as proactive coping and
preventive coping. The definitions of these concepts and their
differences will be introduced later. Searching online with these terms
as key words suggests that future-oriented coping has not been
introduced to the field of career development. However, some
semantically similar terms, such as planfulness, forecasting, and
anticipation of the future, are mentioned frequently. For example,
Stevens (1973) found that high school students who "look
ahead" develop greater job-seeking readiness; Levinson (1978)
mentioned that coping with transitions need to be foreseen; Super (1983)
emphasized the critical importance of "future perspective"
toward planning and exploration when measuring career maturity; and
Heppner, Neal, and Larson (1984) found that preventive training in
problem solving is beneficial to college students. Recently, Brown,
Cober, and Kane (2007) examined the impact of proactive personality in
the process of graduates' job hunting and demonstrated a
significant correlation between proactive personality and job search
success (r = .22). Considering these links between foresight and career
development, we predicted that future-oriented coping would have a
positive effect on graduate job hunting.

Proactive Coping and Preventive Coping

Aspinwall and Taylor (1997) first proposed the concept of proactive
coping, which raised the issue of coping with future stress. They
defined proactive coping as individuals' efforts to prepare for
difficult changes and events that threaten personal goals or general
well-being. They also proposed the five-stage model of proactive coping,
in which resource accumulation, attention recognition, initial
appraisal, preliminary coping, and eliciting and using feedback were
regarded as the five stages.

Schwarzer and Taubert (2002) identified four kinds of coping:
reactive coping, anticipatory coping, proactive coping, and preventive
coping, each differentiated by the time at which the target stress
occurs. Reactive coping emphasizes past events; anticipatory coping
deals with impending stresses, for example, a presentation in 10
minutes; proactive coping aims at upcoming challenges; and preventive
coping focuses on uncertain stresses in the distant future (Schwarzer
& Knoll, 2003). Compared with reactive coping and anticipatory
coping, proactive coping and preventive coping confront stress in the
less immediate future. They can be put together into one concept named
future-oriented coping (Gan, Yang, Zhou, & Zhang, 2007).

Proactive coping and preventive coping are mainly discriminated by
their motivations. Compared with preventive coping, proactive coping
regards stresses as challenges instead of threats. Therefore, proactive
coping should be redefined as individuals' efforts to build up
general resources that facilitate goal achievement and self-realization
(Schwarzer & Taubert, 2002). According to this definition, proactive
coping as proposed by Aspinwall and Taylor (1997) was in fact preventive
coping, because its goal is preventing a bad outcome rather than
constructing a good one. Sohl and Mover (2009) confirmed the separation
of two differing conceptualizations of proactive coping. That is,
conceptualizing proactive coping as positively focused on striving for
goals could predict well-being, whereas conceptualizing it as focused on
preventing a negative future could not.

The Present Study

The primary aim of this study was to test the process of
future-oriented coping under the situation of graduate job hunting. As
proposed by Aspinwall and Taylor (1997), appraisal of stress occurs
before coping, and then coping results in outcomes. In the present
study, we tested the mediating effect of future-oriented coping between
appraisal of stress and outcome of job hunting. Our first hypothesized
model did not discriminate the different roles of proactive coping and
preventive coping and treated them equally as mediators between
appraisal and outcome. This model, which we named the parallel model, is
shown in Figure 1.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Another aim of the present study was to explore the difference and
relationship between proactive coping and preventive coping. According
to Schwarzer and Taubert (2002), preventive coping deals with uncertain
stress and employs more defensive and general strategies (preparing for
adverse events, saving resources for future needs). Considering the
five-stage model, preventive coping is similar to the first stage,
resource accumulation. In contrast, proactive coping takes more
constructive and purposeful actions (taking charge, seeking challenges;
Greenglass, Schwarzer, Jakubiec, Fiksenbaum, & Taubert, 1999) and
includes logical analysis/problem solving and social support (Roesch et
al., 2009), which is in line with the fourth stage, preliminary coping.
Concerning job hunting, preventive coping may start earlier when the
stress is distant and uncertain, for example, in the first years of
college, whereas proactive coping may be invoked later when the stress
is upcoming, such as in the graduating year. In addition, preventive
coping resources can affect the appraised desirability of taking a new
job (McCarthy & Lambert, 1999). Taken all together, we assumed that,
based on years of accumulation of resources through preventive coping,
individuals would form a certain appraisal of job hunting and then start
the proactive coping process, and that the proactive coping process
would influence the result of job hunting. We called this process the
sequence model, as shown in Figure 2.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

We compared the parallel model and the sequence model in order to
shed light on the relationship between proactive coping and preventive
coping. Although they were regarded as distinct concepts by Schwarzer
and Taubert (2002), their link may exceed the surface similarity that
they both focus on future stresses and may compose a sequential process.
In that case, it is better to say that proactive coping and preventive
coping are two stages rather than two types of future-oriented coping.

In the present study, outcome variables included both subjective
and objective indicators (i.e., perceived pressure of job hunting and
obtained job offers). In addition to the two models for testing, four
hypotheses were proposed:

1. Future-oriented coping will be negatively correlated with
perceived pressure.

3. Proactive coping will be positively correlated with challenge
appraisal of job hunting, but preventive coping will not.

4. Preventive coping will be positively correlated with threat
appraisal, but proactive coping will not.

Method

Participants

Two hundred and thirty Chinese college students participated in
this study. Among the respondents, 14 students had incomplete data or
provided random responses; thus their data were discarded. The remaining
sample consisted of 216 students: 124 men (57.4%) and 91 women (42.1%).
One participant did not indicate gender (0.5%). Of the participants, 65
majored in liberal arts and social sciences (30.1%), 138 majored in
natural science (63.9%), and 13 did not indicate their major (6.0%). One
hundred and sixty-six participants were investigated in 2007 (76.9%) and
50 in 2009 (23.1%). All of the participants were in their graduating
year when investigated.

Instruments

The Future-Oriented Coping Inventory. The Future-Oriented Coping
Inventory (FCI) was originally developed from the Proactive Coping
Inventory (Greenglass et al., 1999). Gan et al. (2007) translated and
revised it into a 16-item, self-administered questionnaire to measure
future-oriented coping of Chinese college students. The FCI includes two
subscales, Proactive Coping and Preventive Coping. Participants were
asked to indicate the extent to which each item describes their behavior
or attitude toward potential stresses on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1
(not like me at alt) to 4 (completely like me). A representative item
for proactive coping is "After attaining a goal, I look for
another, more challenging one" and for preventive coping is "I
will save money to prevent suffering from poverty in my old age."
Cronbach's alphas were .85 for proactive coping and .78 for
preventive coping.

The Perceived Pressure Scale. The Perceived Pressure Scale (PPS) is
a global measure of perceived stress, which in this study was introduced
to measure the perceived pressure of job hunting. It is a 14-item,
self-administered questionnaire constructed by Cohen, Kamarck, and
Mermelstein (1983). The reliability and validity of its Chinese version
(Yang & Huang, 2003) was confirmed in a sample of 3,666 Chinese
urban residents, including 206 college students. In order to measure the
pressure of job hunting in the current study, the instructions were
revised to read, "Please report the frequency of the following
situations since you have begun seeking a job." Participants
indicated their answers using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to
S (always). Higher scores indicate higher pressure. The Cronbach's
alpha for this measure in the current study was 0.84.

The self-developed job-hunting appraisal inventory. This inventory
was developed by the authors. It is based on Lazarus and Folkman's
(1987) cognitive appraisal framework of coping, which distinguishes
between two kinds of appraisal: primary (appraisal of circumstances,
including harm, threat, and challenge) and secondary (appraisal of
control). In the current study, only primary appraisal was evaluated.
Because harm appraisal targets past events and this study focused on
future stresses, we designed only two dimensions of appraisal: threat
(three items: threat, burden, and unwillingness) and challenge (three
items: challenge, opportunity, and self-growth). Using a 5-point scale,
the instruction was "What does seeking a job mean for you
personally?" (Lazarus & Folkman addressed this issue with the
question, "What does it mean for me personally?") Principal
component factor analysis with oblique rotation was performed on the six
items. Two factors were extracted. The first factor, challenge
appraisal, accounted for 42.3% of the variance; the alpha coefficient
was .78. The second factor, threat appraisal, accounted for 23.1% of the
variance; the alpha coefficient was .53, which was too low to accept.
Therefore, only the challenge appraisal sub-scale was analyzed later.

Outcomes

Outcome data on job hunting were collected to supply external
indices. The item used to indicate the result of job hunting was
"Thus far, have you received at least one job offer?" We also
investigated the frequency of 17 typical behaviors before and during the
period of job hunting to increase the practical potential of this study.
The frequency was measured by a 4-point scale, 1 = never and 4 = often.
The questionnaire about behavior was only collected among the
participants in 2009, as a supplement to the main results of this study.

Procedures

The first sample was investigated in January 2007. By this time,
most recruitment had finished, and about half of the graduates planning
to work after graduation had already received at least one job offer.
There would still be some recruitment in March. However, since large
companies and government ministries are able to recruit eligible
employees in the first round of recruitment, whereas many small
companies cannot fulfill their vacancies and offer a second chance in
March, offers sent out before January are usually regarded as better
than those sent after March. Therefore, we investigated January offers
as an indication of successful job hunting. The second sample was
investigated during the same period in 2009. We supplemented the data in
order to increase sample size and satisfy the requirement of more
reliable statistical analyses. In addition, objective behavior was added
in the second questionnaire. All participants were recruited through
convenience sampling. Investigators sent out questionnaires in student
dormitories at 10:00 p.m. when most students were in their rooms. Only
the students searching for jobs were selected to participate. All of
them completed the questionnaire independently, anonymously, and
voluntarily. After investigation, each participant was compensated with
a gift.

Results

Demographics and Correlations

The effects of gender, major, and time on the self-reported
variables, proactive coping, preventive coping, challenge appraisal, and
perceived pressure, were tested. MANOVA showed that these demographic
variables had no effect on the self-reported variables. However, they
did influence the result of job hunting. We conducted three separate
chi-square tests for gender, major, and time on the number of people who
had successfully found a job. Results showed that more men found a job
than women, [X.sup.2](1) = 14.33, p < .01, and more science-majored
students found jobs than social-majored students, [X.sup.2](1) = 13.24,
p < .01. No difference was detected between 2007 graduates and 2009
graduates, [X.sup.2](1) = 0.352, p > .05.

SEM was performed to test the two hypothesized alternative
mediating models. [M.sub.0] was a zero model with only direct paths from
challenge appraisal, proactive coping, and preventive coping to
perceived pressure. [M.sub.1] (shown in Figure 3) was the parallel
model, with indirect paths from challenge appraisal to perceived
pressure through proactive coping and preventive coping separately.
[M.sub.2] (shown in Figure 4) was the sequence model, with direct and
indirect paths from preventive coping to proactive coping. In all the
three models, each latent variable was predicted by three packaged
items.

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

The fit indices of the three models are listed in Table 2.
According to Hu and Bentler's (1999) criteria of model fit, CFI
must be higher than .95, RMSEA lower than 0.08, and SRMR lower than
0.05. Only the model fit indices of [M.sub.2] were within the acceptable
range. The three models were not nested; therefore, we did not compare
their [X.sup.2] and df. Instead, we compared their information criterion
(Akaike information criterion). Only the model AIC of [M.sub.2] was
lower than independence AIC and saturated AIC, which suggests that
[M.sub.2] was effective and better than the saturated model (Akaike,
1973).

Similar analysis was conducted on the objective dependent variable
by replacing perceived pressure with successful job hunting (named
"job" in the figure) in the above three models. Figure 5 shows
[M.sub.1.sup.'] and Figure 6 shows [M.sub.2.sup.']. The model
fit indices are listed in Table 2. Again, only the sequence model
([M.sub.2.sup.']) was acceptable.

Both perceived pressure and result-of-job-hunting models supported
the sequence model, which suggests that proactive coping and preventive
coping are highly covariant. To further clarify the results, we
classified participants by proactive coping and preventive coping.
K-means cluster analysis suggested that two clusters were agglomerated.
Cluster 1 included 113 people, with cluster centers at 22 and 24 for
proactive coping and preventive coping, respectively. Cluster 2 included
95 people, with cluster centers at 28 and 28. Thus, Cluster 1 is a low
future-oriented coping group, and Cluster 2 is a high future-oriented
coping group.

Job Hunting Behavior and Future-Oriented Coping

In the second sample (n = 50), we explored several behaviors
related to job hunting. Principal component analysis with an oblique
rotation was conducted on 17 behaviors. Two factors were extracted.
Factor 1 explained 26.34% of total variance and Factor 2 explained
14.80%. The items and loadings of each factor are shown in Table 3. We
named Factor 1 "hunting behavior" and Factor 2 "preparing
behavior."

This study investigated how Chinese college students cope with the
stress arising from job hunting. The positive role of future-oriented
coping in this process was supported, and the sequence model between
proactive coping and preventive coping was preferred rather than the
parallel model.

Future-Oriented Coping and Job Hunting

The first and second hypotheses in the introduction were fully
supported. This study indicated that future-oriented coping is
associated with positive outcomes of job hunting, either the internal
psychological feeling or the external result of hunting. Both proactive
coping and preventive coping were negatively correlated with the
perceived pressure of job hunting. Students with job offers employed
more proactive coping and preventive coping than those without. The
result was consistent with other research on future-oriented coping,
which found that both proactive coping and preventive coping have
positive effects on self-efficacy, cardiac rehabilitation adherence, and
so on (e.g., Lee, 2007). The result was also in line with the study in
the same field conducted by Brown et al. (2007), which demonstrated a
significant correlation between proactive personality and job search
success (r = .22). The relationship between proactive coping and
proactive personality will be discussed later. In short, this study
extended the practical scope of future-oriented coping as a concept of
positive psychology.

This study also attempted to compare the effect of proactive coping
and preventive coping on job hunting. All evidence supported the
viewpoint that proactive coping is more important than preventive
coping. Proactive coping has a significantly larger correlation with
perceived pressure. In the mediation model, it is closer to and has a
direct effect on outcomes. And it is correlated with both preparing
behavior and hunting behavior, which was suggested to positively
influence the result of hunting, whereas preventive coping only
correlated with preparing behavior. The findings were consistent with
Gan et al. (2007), who found that proactive coping, compared with
preventative coping, had a significantly larger effect on student
engagement and freshmen adjustment (Gan, Hu, & Zhang, 2010).

However, Hypothesis 3, which proposed that both preventive coping
and proactive coping were related to challenge appraisal, was not
proved, which provoked us to reconsider the relationship between
proactive coping and preventive coping. Maybe they are not two distinct
processes arising from either challenge or threat appraisal of target
events, as Schwarzer and Taubert (2002) suggested. We discuss this in
detail in the next section.

Proactive Coping and Preventive Coping

Based on previous theories of proactive coping and preventive
coping (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1997; Schwarzer & Taubert, 2002), we
proposed two alternative models, the parallel model and the sequence
model. If proactive coping and preventive coping are two separate
processes, they should follow two parallel processes. On the contrary,
if they are two sequential stages of one process, the sequence model
should be supported. The results of this study supported the sequence
model. The effect of preventive coping on job hunting was mediated by
proactive coping. Moreover, the cluster analysis suggested that
participants either scored higher on both proactive coping and
preventive coping or lower on both, which means proactive coping and
preventive coping are highly covariant.

It is possible that the covariance is due to one common personality
trend, for example, future temporal orientation (Ouwehand, de Ridder,
& Bensing, 2008) or proactive personality. As Brown et al.'s
(2007) study indicated, proactive personality impacts job search
outcomes through the mediating effect of behavior. And coping is defined
as thoughts and behaviors in the face of stressful events (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984). Perhaps proactive personality is the distal antecedent
of proactive coping. Based on this assumption, as well as the findings
of the present study, we can try to describe how an individual with
proactive characteristics copes with future stress. At first, when the
target stressful event is uncertain, he initiates preventive coping
(accumulates resources, etc.). Then, because the event is approaching,
he evaluates the situation and appraises it as a challenge. Next, he
invokes proactive coping (creates opportunities, etc.), and finally, he
rides out the stress.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

The present study explored the relationship between proactive
coping and preventive coping. After comparison with the parallel model,
the preferred sequence model supported the stage theory (Aspinwall &
Taylor, 1997) and integrated preventive coping and proactive coping into
this process, which may contribute to the integration of future-oriented
coping theory.

In terms of practice and application, this study introduces
future-oriented coping into the field of job hunting. In this research
field, most researchers have focused attention on job lay-offs and
reemployment (Caplan, Vinokur, Price, & Van, 1989; Wanberg, Watt,
& Rumsey, 1996, 1997), which deal with stressors (e.g., financial
hardship) that have already happened. Graduates' job hunting is
different in that they have a long period of preparation before they
begin their search. Some researchers have investigated this situation,
considering variables such as biographical information, gender, social
class background, and job search strategies (Keenan & Scott, 1985).
This study contributes the idea that future-oriented coping also
influences job hunting. Compared with the study on proactive personality
and job hunting (Brown et al., 2007), examining proactive coping serves
the purpose of intervention. Proactive personality is something rather
stable that cannot be easily changed with time, whereas proactive coping
could be taught, learned, and shaped in a given situation. Thus,
proactive coping may be a particularly good candidate for inclusion in
psychoeducational interventions (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004). For
example, career counselors could instruct students to forecast future
stressors, recognize them as challenges, make preparations, and actively
take constructive behavior. Under the current global financial crisis,
taking a future perspective and preparing earlier seem increasingly
important in graduates' job hunting.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study investigated some objective variables such as job offers
and hunting behaviors to eliminate common method bias and made model
comparisons to increase the reliability of analysis. However, some
limitations need to be pointed out. First, it is a pity that the measure
of threat appraisal was psychometrically unacceptable, which resulted in
some hypotheses remaining untested. Further study with improved measures
is needed. Second, the sample of this research was limited to students
from top universities in China. They are dominant groups in job hunting
compared to students from non-key colleges. So, although we did not
detect a difference between the 2007 sample and the 2009 sample, it does
not mean that Chinese college students' job hunting was not
impacted by the economic crisis. Investigations on a broader population
are need. Third, this study was cross-sectional and correlational in
design. Any causal conclusion should not be inferred from the current
data. This is in particular a problem because mediation was supposed to
be tested by SEM, but mediation is always understood to be causal
(Maxwell & Cole, 2007). If longitudinal data could be collected
first in the early years of college and then in the graduating years, a
more credible conclusion could be made.

This research was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Project Number 31070913) and also in part by grants
from the Chinese National Office for Education Sciences Planning
(Project Number DBA080173).